Talk:List of Former Villains
Erase or not erase? So, what do you guys think, should this article get removed or should it stay? I mean, my brain almost died when I entered this article from all the bad grammar, but I think its a pretty good article that could turn out pretty well if we added more things to it Dyas 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I don't think it should be deleted. Bad grammar just means that it needs to be fixed. The content is important, and I feel it's worth keeping. 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Dabura Many of the characters here encompass my least favorites in the series run. However, Dabura is a bit odd to be included as a former villain; particularly due to the fact that the transition never takes place in manga canon. I am contesting his inclusion on this list as a result of Toriyama's actual premise for the character's story arc to have ended when he was eaten by Buu. It appears that anyone who is sent to "heaven" as a realm becomes "cleansed" so it doesn't necessarily mean that Dabura became a "former villain" in the process of this forced torture ensued upon him by Yemma. I believe he remains a villain in the DB canon, so this article needs many things fixed in terms of the canon versus the anime and/or the filler, which in this case... was filler. - 17:21, August 31, 2013 (UTC) i agree with PZ here User:GokuBrolyVegeta 17:25, August 31, 2013 (UTC) :Coincidentally, I am separately the list into characters who actually change their ways by canon or if it's merely filler and/or insinuated by a movie or GT. Toriyama can easily ret-con these scenarios that are witnessed as filler as he did with the legendary super saiyan being bardock as opposed to goku or broly both. I do believe Toriyama's actual writing to be better than the filler or non-canon material as it seems to flow better with the actual premise of the story in its inception. - 17:27, August 31, 2013 (UTC) You know, 10X don't like the canon/non-canon separation. Technically, GT, fillers and movies are canon as well, since they are authorised and stuff. AF and fan fictions are the only who aren't canon. 17:37, August 31, 2013 (UTC) :Also, you put Abo and Kado in canon ROFL 17:41, August 31, 2013 (UTC) Personal preference aside, we need to follow the Manual of Style. "Canon" does not even have an accepted definition, so organizing an article that way is very confusing. I just don't think there is anything to gain by putting 3 characters in a separate section that isn't already explained in the existing descriptions of when the change took place. 02:43, September 1, 2013 (UTC) :I am still highly against Dabura being placed in this section considering it is misleading to the general fanbase as Toriyama never suggested that he is an anti-hero much less a "former" villain. If anything, to the actual fanbase, he remains a villain. We need to somehow clarify this because it is confusing for people to automatically assume he is a former villain when he actually isn't. We should either fix this section to separate Dabura, or simply remove him entirely. - 02:55, September 1, 2013 (UTC) ::More of the fanbase will have watched the anime than looked up statements by Toriyama regarding character allegiances. In fact, I'd wager that more of the fanbase has watched the anime than even read the manga (not to discredit the manga's place on the hierarchy of canonicity). All that it says in the manga is that Dabura went to heaven. His fate afterwards is unknown in the manga, but the anime says what does befall him, and it would be irresponsible to leave out information. It is, in fact, less confusing for information to be given in their logical position, rather than based on the source (which is the conclusion that is reached every time this discussion is started again). If people are confused, they can click on the link to Dabura's page and read about how he became a former villain. 03:09, September 1, 2013 (UTC) I would lean toward just writing what you just said next to his name in the article. Or if it really doesn't make sense to have him here, then remove him. Both of those options comply better with the MoS than reformatting the article around manga/anime distinctions. 03:03, September 1, 2013 (UTC) :Fine, I'll add that bit to his section. The problem is that this character is implied to be good in the anime filler but is coincidentally never made good in the manga. This is conflicting because removing him entirely would be going against the filler material itself altogether. We can't generally dispose of all filler material, but filler is what creates plot holes and problems in general as much of it is ret-con-ed by creators later. - 03:07, September 1, 2013 (UTC) :I don't really see what the plot hole is here. In the manga he is shown up to certain point, and in the anime he does a few more things later that don't change his past actions. It is highly unlikely that Toriyama will come out with new media contradicting this instance, and impossible for him to alter the original manga in such a way. I think specifically saying something like, "He is a former villain due to actions seen only in anime filler" is quite clear to any reader. 03:12, September 1, 2013 (UTC) I'm fine with "anime only" or "anime filler only", but the part where it says "this is debatable" is more of an opinion than anything. 03:15, September 1, 2013 (UTC) :I reworded it to be more encyclopedic. Focus is still anime filler-only. 04:38, September 1, 2013 (UTC) Delete We have a category to tell us who is a former villain, we don't need a whole page for it. DragonEmeperor (talk) 01:17, August 19, 2018 (UTC)